Iraq Self-Sufficiency and American Energy Independence Act of 2008

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008. Senator Leahy joins me as an original cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to reaffirm policy objectives towards Ethiopia and encourage greater commitment to the underpinnings of a true democracy--an independent judiciary and the rule of law, respect for human and political rights, and an end to restrictions on the media and non-governmental organizations.

As many in this body know, I have spoken numerous times in recent months about the situation in Ethiopia and I continue to believe that the U.S.-Ethiopian partnership is very important--one of the more critical ones given not only our historic relationship but also Ethiopia's location in an increasingly strategic region. Ethiopia sits on the Horn of Africa--perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in the world, with Somalia a failed state and safe haven for terrorists, Eritrea an inaccessible authoritarian government that meddles across national borders, Sudan a genocidal regime, and Kenya still emerging from a profound electoral crisis. One look at the deteriorating situation across the Horn and the importance of a robust relationship with Ethiopia is obvious. And, by contrast with some of its neighbors, Ethiopia appears relatively stable with a growing economy. But I am concerned about a number of anti-democratic actions in that country, particularly since this administration has largely overlooked them.

The security threats in Ethiopia are real but, unfortunately, the Bush administration's approach to addressing these threats and strengthening this alliance remains short-sighted and narrow--focusing predominately on short-term ways to address insecurity while overlooking the need for long-term measures that are needed to achieve the same goal, such as desperately needed goverance reform, the rule of law, and increased accountability. Genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. It is also essential if we are going to successfully combat extremism, thereby bolstering our own national security here at home.

That is why today I am introducing the Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008--because as our administration fails to balance our priorities in Ethiopia, or to adopt comprehensive strategies to achieve those priorities, we are watching significant backsliding in previously hard-won democratic gains. As we turn a blind eye to the escalating political tensions, people are being thrown in jail without justification and non-government organizations are being restricted, while civilians are dying unnecessarily in the Ogaden region--just like so many before them in Oromiya, Amhara, and Gambella. Furthermore, the Ethiopian military has come under increasing scrutiny for its conduct in the Ogaden as well as Somalia, with credible reports from non-governmental organizations of torture, rape and indiscriminate attacks. By providing unconditioned security assistance we are also sowing the seeds of insecurity and creating new grievances both in Ethiopia and in its neighboring countries.

I want to see greater progress--not less--in Ethiopia which is why this bill authorizes an additional $20 million for democracy and governance projects in Ethiopia. The addition of these funds would make it one of the top five countries on the continent receiving this kind of assistance from this U.S. Government. This bill calls on the President to take additional steps to implement these programs but also requires that funds made available to the Ethiopian government be subject to regular congressional notification. This ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately--and used to support a government taking steps to become more democratic, not less.

I make it a practice to pay for all bills I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by a transfer of funds from NASA. Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but recent Office of Management and Budget projections confirm that we now have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. Instead of cutting specific programs, which are likely to have begun and thus would cost more to close, transferring $20 million from the general budget would allow appropriators to evaluate, at their discretion, how best to make this transfer.

I ask my colleagues to consider what our own State Department has said about the political situation in Ethiopia and then consider how best to rectify the situation. The 2007 State Department Report on Human Rights notes that in Ethiopia the following occurred: ``limitation[s] on citizens' right to change their government during the most recent elections; unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition or insurgent groups; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens' privacy rights and frequent refusal to follow the law regarding search warrants; use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counter-insurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly; limitations on freedom of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation, FGM; exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities, including killing and harassment of union leaders.''

The continued failure of the administration to acknowledge this reality is emblematic of its insular thinking and unwillingness to see the big picture. Without a balanced policy that addresses both short and long-term concerns in Ethiopia we are putting ourselves at greater risk and making ourselves more vulnerable, not less.

Mr. President, this week I am introducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4, because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. Today I am introducing a bill, the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of 2008, to help promote better collaboration between our Nation's high schools and local, regional, and statewide businesses and workforce development groups.

This legislation seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout rate in our Nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a growing body of research indicates that the United States has a graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and about one-third of our country's high school students will not graduate on time. Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower, in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our Nation's urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the Milwaukee

Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis report put out earlier this year by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1 percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee.

One of our top education priorities as a nation must be to address the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our minority and non-minority students as well as between low income and more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad, comprehensive solution involving the Federal, State and local governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to the needs of our Nation's high schools and our students.

While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our Nation's students why it is imperative that they graduate from high school.

Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense among employers and postsecondary institutions that our Nation's high school students who do graduate are increasingly unprepared for success either in the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors, including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around the country.

To address these two interrelated issues, I am introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act. My bill would provide 5-year competitive education grants to states and school districts to foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and practically. States and local school districts must use this money to form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations and others.

These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying the local, regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculum and programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to implement the program in qualifying schools.

During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary education.

This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the students who would be served by this legislation all talk with each other to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation.

Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce Development, and various local school districts have all been working to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries.

I look forward to pushing this legislation forward in the coming weeks and months. Some of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency, that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the American people sent us here to get things done, and they are obviously very frustrated with the fact that this has been a do-nothing Congress, a do-nothing Senate. We have not gotten much done. In fact, the problem has been identified by both of the Presidential candidates, Senators McCain and Obama, who have railed about the fact that we need reform in this body because nothing is getting done on behalf of the American people.

The Democrats have been in charge of the Senate and House for the last 2 years. So one wonders why haven't we been able to get things done? For example, to fund the Government for next year, we are supposed to by now have passed 13 appropriations bills to fund all of the departments of the U.S. Government. Not one appropriation bill has been passed and sent to the President. We are going to have to bundle everything up in a giant ball at the end of September and, instead of carefully considering each individual department, we are going to have to adopt a continuing resolution so the Government can continue to operate. That is not the way to do business.

With rare exception, the majority leader in the Senate has been less interested in enabling the Senate to work its will and finding consensus than simply pushing an agenda of the majority in a sort of my-way-or-the-highway kind of approach. This has led to gridlock and, as I said, not much getting done.

Let me illustrate this by a simple statistic that says it all. In 2008 alone, so far, 28.4 percent of all rollcall votes have been cloture votes. That is a record historic high. Over 28 percent of our votes--over a fourth of them--have been cloture votes. Last year set the all-time record at 14 percent, and the average is 4.3 percent.

Why is this important? Because cloture stops debate, and it stops Republicans, in this case, from offering our solutions, alternatives, or amendments to what the Democratic leader puts on the floor. He says it is either this way

or nothing. You either vote on this or we are not going to let you have amendments and we are going to have a cloture vote. Again, 28.4 percent of the votes have been cloture votes.

I remember several years ago when my colleague John McCain stood on the Senate floor fighting for the right of a Democratic Senator to get a vote on an amendment. He said something we all agreed with, which is that a Senator has a right to get a vote on his or her amendment. That was then and this is now: Sorry, Republicans, no votes on amendments. We are going to fill the legislative tree--a parliamentary tactic--or file cloture and stop anything from being debated or voted on. We don't want to take tough votes or give Republicans a chance to win one of the votes.

What have been some of the results? Well, in 2007, some very important tax provisions expired. The research and development tax credit, for example, and the ability to fix the alternative minimum tax so it doesn't apply to most taxpayers. We have to pass what is called a tax extender bill to extend these expiring provisions and make sure the AMT doesn't get 23 million to 26 million American families this year. We have not gotten it done so far. Why? There is an obvious way to do this. The ranking member on the Finance Committee pretty well figured out how this could occur. No, we cannot get that done.

On energy production, both of my colleagues have talked about that issue. The majority leader called up the so-called antispeculation bill. We all agree we could add resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and make sure it has the ability to regulate this futures trading in a way that would prevent manipulation and speculation in the market. But we also appreciate the fact that supply and demand is a much larger factor with regard to the price of gasoline, for example. So Republicans wanted to offer amendments that created some alternatives to the Democratic bill that would assist in nuclear energy production, coal to liquids, and allow offshore drilling as one of the key elements of it. We need relief from high gasoline prices. The Democratic leader said no.

The only thing the President could do was to at least remove an Executive moratorium, which he did. That moratorium no longer exists. What happened to gas prices? Oil prices have dropped, I should say, by $40 a barrel, and gas prices have dropped somewhat off of the high above $4 because of the market's belief now that when the President withdrew the Executive moratorium, it was the first step. The second step would be Congress doing something, and that would increase production, and therefore reduce the cost of the oil, and therefore enable the American consumer to pay less at the pump. But Congress still has not done anything.

Now we hear that next week the majority leader is going to allow a bill to come to the floor, but it is not going to provide the kind of offshore drilling that Republicans have been advocating. The ability to debate it is going to be very circumscribed. We are not going to be able to present the kind of amendments we would like to present and have this debated and amended so we can come up with real solutions.

Another example is free trade. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is one that almost everybody acknowledges is a good thing. It is critical for our relationship with this important country in our hemisphere, which is standing against the likes of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Yet the Democrats, because of their concern about the reaction of labor unions, have said, no, we are not going to take up this Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

These are the kind of issues--and let me add one more: judges. These are the kinds of issues Americans expect us to get done. We have only confirmed four circuit court judges this year, four in the entire year, less than the average of all of the last Presidents, certainly less than Bill Clinton. Yet the majority says we don't have time to do that.

Clearly, this is a do-nothing Congress. Clearly, our Presidential candidates, both of them, recognize reform is necessary.

Let me mention the last issue. I mentioned appropriations bills. We are going to have to ball them up into one giant bill called a continuing resolution. Mark my words, one of the things somebody is going to try to do is attach a rider to the appropriations bill--maybe in the middle of the night, I don't know--but it is going to be to continue a moratorium on offshore drilling. Mark my words, somebody is going to try to do that. We cannot allow that to happen. Will Republicans be cut off from our ability to prevent that rider from going on the appropriations bill or to allow us to vote it off, to have an amendment to say, no, moratorium and offshore drilling is not going to be on that continuing resolution? This is critical to the American future. Are we going to have this right?

These are the kinds of questions I think are going to be necessary for us to resolve before Congress is going to be able to get anything done. But I will suggest this as well: Republican Senators can only do so much in the minority when Democrats are in charge. As my colleague, Senator McCain, said at the Republican Convention, if he is elected, change is on the way. And one of the big changes is going to go right back to what he said several years ago. As I said, whether it is a Democrat wanting a vote on an amendment or a Republican, they are going to get that vote, and we are not going to have so many cloture motions filed to cut off amendments, to cut off debate, and say it is my way or the highway.

The American people want something done. We still have time--even in the short time remaining in this year--to do something about the energy crisis in this country, and that means to get offshore drilling. That has to be at the top of our agenda. Secondly, we have to get the Government funded so it can continue operating next year without, as I said, a moratorium on more offshore drilling.

I am hopeful that in the next 3 weeks we will be able to do some things we have not been able to do in the last 6 months. But if we get cooperation from the majority, the minority stands ready to try to work out these issues, to conclude this session on a positive note in a way we can finally say we accomplished something this session for the American people. After all, that is what they sent us here to do.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today in two ways, and I will send the bills to the desk following my comments. The first bill is called the Iraq Self-Sufficiency and American Energy Independence Act, and, the second is called the Rescission of Unneeded Iraq Reconstruction Funds Act of 2008.

In a nutshell, the bills say this: We are going to take up to $11.48 billion that has been appropriated but not yet expended for Iraq reconstruction, funds that are American taxpayers' dollars and that the Iraqi Government says it does not need, and bring that money back to this country. In the first approach, we would use the funds to substantially increase our renewable energy and make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. Alternatively, in the second approach, we would use those funds to reduce the deficit. Either is fine with me, and I am introducing it both ways.

Here is the Special Inspector General Report for Iraq Reconstruction. This report shows that there are now $11.48 billion in U.S. funds destined for Iraq reconstruction.

And let me quote, if I may, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq: ``Iraq does not need financial assistance.''

That is for sure. The price of oil has gone way up like a Roman candle. They are producing 2 million barrels a day in Iraq. They have, by all accounts, somewhere around a $49 billion surplus in bank accounts for the Government of Iraq, and there have been estimates that will reach a $79 billion surplus. Meanwhile, our country is deep in debt, and yet we have money going to Iraq for reconstruction coming from American taxpayers' dollars while Iraqi money sits in the bank? It doesn't make any sense to me.

There is $11.4 billion that has already been appropriated and is as yet unspent. My feeling is let's take the Iraqis at their word: ``Iraq does not need financial assistance.''

All right, I agree with that. Then let's not provide that financial assistance, and let's tell the Iraqis they have the capability to use their own surpluses to invest in their country.

It is interesting to me that we are now funding something like 900 water projects in the country of Iraq, and President Bush, in his budget, says let's cut back water projects in our country by a very substantial amount. We are going to take American taxpayers' dollars and build water projects in Iraq and stop building infrastructure in this country at a time when they have a big surplus and we have a big deficit? I don't think so.

I have a chart that shows what has happened to the price of oil from July 2003 to July 2008: $27 a barrel to $128 a barrel. The country of Iraq is producing 2 million barrels a day, and therefore their treasury is fattening in a way that is very significant.

I have a New York Times story on August 6, just a month ago:

Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi Government with a

cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year's

end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But

Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on

reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the

United States.

That makes no sense to me. It just makes no sense. I want to show something on page 10 of the special inspector general's report, which is a description of what is going on in Iraq. This is a picture of something called the Whale. This is referred to as the Whale in Iraq. It is actually the Kahn Bani Sa'ad Correctional Facility. U.S. taxpayers paid $40 million to build that prison in Iraq. I am told the Iraqis said they don't want the prison, but $40 million went to the Parsons Corporation.

Take a look at this photo. I will bring it to the Senate floor in a chart. It is in unbelievable disrepair. Apparently, after the $40 million, they kicked the contractor off the site, brought another contractor in, and spent another $10 million. So they have $50 million invested in something called the Whale, a prison the Iraqis did not want, is not now being used, will never be used, and sits in the desert rotting with 50 million of American taxpayers' dollars having been spent on it. Reconstruction, American taxpayers' dollars, construction in Iraq, in some cases even construction Iraqis don't want.

The question, it seems to me, for us is, are we going to continue this? At some point, is some common sense going to prevail? We shouldn't take money from American taxpayers and send it to Iraq, a country that has substantial surplus in the bank, and build projects in Iraq even while we cut infrastructure projects in our country.

The legislation I am introducing will say we will take $11.48 billion that is appropriated but as of yet unspent and rescind that spending and use it either to reduce this country's budget deficit or use it to substantially change our energy future so we are less dependent on that part of the world for our energy future.

The funds I am proposing to eliminate are in three categories. One is the IRRF2. It is called the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, which covers many projects, including, as I just described, the prison which sits unused and falling apart, a $50 million prison called the Whale. The ISFF is the Iraq Security Forces Fund. A country with currently about $50 billion in the bank in surplus surely should have the ability now, after these long years of the American taxpayers footing the bill, to provide for infrastructure for their own army and their own police. Finally there is the ESF, the Economic Support Fund, which includes funding for provincial reconstruction teams, microfinance, and so on.

I would note that I am not proposing to cut the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which gives field commanders some discretion to provide funds for local projects.

But I do suggest it is long past the time for this Congress to use just a small amount of common sense. Instead of shoveling money out the door in support of reconstruction projects in Iraq, money we don't have, money we are borrowing from the Chinese and Japanese, by the way, instead of shoveling money out the door to provide money in a country that is piling up its

own surpluses from oil sales, let's decide that which we previously decided to spend will no longer be spent and brought back home. It seems to me we must do that if we are going to begin to put this country's fiscal house in order.

Mr. President, I have been listening with great interest to my colleague from Arizona. I might say, before he leaves the floor, my hope is that after trying eight times and failing to pass a bill to extend the tax incentives for renewable energy, we will get a little cooperation from the other side in the coming weeks to begin the first step of what we ought to have been doing easily, and that is pass the tax extenders to encourage renewable energy.

One of the reasons they have opposed it is because we actually pay for it. One of the ways we pay for it is to say to hedge fund managers, who are only paying a 15-percent income tax rate anyway, that they cannot be running their income through foreign tax-haven countries as deferred compensation to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Because the other side is upset with that as a pay-for the tax extenders for renewable energy, eight times they have blocked our ability to extend renewable energy tax credits, which is a way of substantially expanding our country's homegrown energy.

It is interesting for people to comment on the floor and say we need more cooperation, when eight times we have tried to extend these tax incentives for renewable energy, and eight times we have been blocked by those who are concerned about protecting the ability of wealthy hedge fund managers to avoid paying Federal income taxes. Enough about that.

With respect to drilling, I was one of four Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats--who opened the 8.3 million acres called lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. I have other legislation I have had in for a year and a half to increase substantial drilling. It is a canard for a number of them to come to the Senate floor to say Democrats don't support drilling. It is simply factually wrong. That is a debate perhaps for tomorrow or another day.

(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 3454 and S. 3455 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')